Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

David also called God his Saviour, but he committed adultery, killed the woman’s husband to cover it up, tried to pretend it didn’t happen, and then cowardly asked God to punish the whole nation instead of himself.

Furthermore, what was Jesus saving His people from? Their sins.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

But logically it follows that if a person has never sinned, than they have no need of a Saviour for their sins.

But Mary knew she had been saved from sin. The angel greeted her with this unique greeting. David never had that!

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Furthermore, Jesus came to be a Saviour through “forgiveness of sins”, not making them never sin in the first place.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Nowhere does it say Jesus saves through making a person not sin from birth. Rather, God’s pattern all through the Bible is forgiveness of sins through mercy, which implies the sins have already been committed.

Jesus is a Saviour through the forgiveness of sins, not by making them never occur in the 1st place.

 

[guanophore]

Do you have any catholic scholarship on the Scriptures themselves (commentaries) that supports your view?

How is this relevant, ja4? You know very well that Catholic Doctrine is promulgated by the successors of the Apostles, and not “scholars”

I think you ask questions of this kind to foment dissention amidst the people of God. You dont’ believe the Teachings, so you try to get Catholics to see their peers and their theologians dissenting against the Magesterium, then point the “see you have no unity either” finger.

But no one has a right to say, "Adam made me do it," for all are culpable (Romans 5:12):

this is a commentary, and not the official teaching of the Church, which is that not all are culpable.

I don’t think you are taking into consideration what Paul writes in Philippians 2:6-7 which says that Jesus “emptied” Himself of His full deity rights so that He could live among us as a man. He limited Himself for our sakes that He could live among us without destroying us because of our sin.

How is this related to whether or not Mary sinned?

The other problem you have with this –

It is statements of this kind that leave the impression you are here to try to give Catholics problems about their faith. Can you at least own the problems as belonging to yourself?

“Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM” is that it is not supported in the gospels. Impure and sinful people are touching Him all the time and He does not destroy them for it. So it follows that Mary would not have to be sinless and pure for her to birth Jesus. Jesus would not be “contaminated” by Mary’ sinfulness nor any man’s for that matter.

I agree with this. It is more an issue of taking flesh of her flesh, and having the flesh untainted by sin.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3324251]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Her acknowledgement of a Savior and Romans 5:12

guanophore
Mary must have known that she was saved from sin. Otherwise she could not thank God that she had been!

huh? Her acknowledgement does not mean she was saved from sin but rather her need of one.

guanophore
Rom 5:12 does not apply to everybody. If you look at the psalm where Paul took that line, you can easily see that it is about unbelievers.

Paul uses the OT many times to highlight some point and reinterprets them to fit his theology that all means all. Even your church baptizes infants under the assumption they to have sin on their souls.
Since you are saying this does not apply to everyone, are there other people besides Mary who you believe never sinned? Does your church teach this also?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is none explicitedly that states this. However there are no such statements for many others either in the NT. I guesst they were sinless to.

guanophore
You could certainly speculate about that, but it is not something we have from the Apostles.

True and we have no such statement from them that Mary was sinless either.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

But Mary knew she had been saved from sin. The angel greeted her with this unique greeting. David never had that!

Huh? Mary’s greeting was hardly unique. Zacharias was first greeted and told of how special his son would be.

Manoah’s wife, the mother of Samson, was greeted in much the same way as Mary, almost identically (Judges 13).

Judges 13:3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:
7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.

Hannah, too, was blessed and her prayer of thanks very similar to Mary’s. (1 Samuel 2)

Gideon in Judges 6:12 was greeted with “The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour”.

Daniel in Daniel 9:23 was greeted with “O Daniel, I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding… for thou art greatly beloved.” (also echoed in Daniel 10 verses 11 and 19)

Mary’s hymn of praise was not a new thing, and apparently common to those who had been barren but granted childbirth by God’s power:

Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

 

[justasking4]

Furthermore, Jesus came to be a Saviour through “forgiveness of sins”, not making them never sin in the first place.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Nowhere does it say Jesus saves through making a person not sin from birth. Rather, God’s pattern all through the Bible is forgiveness of sins through mercy, which implies the sins have already been committed.

Jesus is a Saviour through the forgiveness of sins, not by making them never occur in the 1st place.

Your last point says it well.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do you have any catholic scholarship on the Scriptures themselves (commentaries) that supports your view?

I recommend Scott Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen, and other Catholic Apologetic sources to cite my sources. Many Catholic Apologists have compared Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. This is affirm in Revelation 11:19 to Revelation 12:1. We Catholics believe the woman clothed with sun is Mary. Of course you heard this before.

If the Revelation is read without verses. Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1-5 would be read as:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

I have no Biblical Scholarship. Do you?

Are you saying these people were also sinless i.e. chose not to sin?

They could have sinned and repented and sin no more.

I don’t think you are taking into consideration what Paul writes in Philippians 2:6-7 which says that Jesus “emptied” Himself of His full deity rights so that He could live among us as a man. He limited Himself for our sakes that He could live among us without destroying us because of our sin.
Who, 3 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 4
7
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance,

The other problem you have with this – “Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM” is that it is not supported in the gospels. Impure and sinful people are touching Him all the time and He does not destroy them for it. So it follows that Mary would not have to be sinless and pure for her to birth Jesus. Jesus would not be “contaminated” by Mary’ sinfulness nor any man’s for that matter.

Philippians 2:6-7 is one of my favorite Biblical verse. I read it during my Vespers.

Mary is pure. God’s grace save her. She is full of grace. I already pointed to you that Luke 1:28 is proof text that she is.

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3324321]But Mary knew she had been saved from sin.

There is not one shred of evidence from the scriptures for this assertion.

The angel greeted her with this unique greeting.

That greeting though does not mean she never sinned though.

David never had that!

True

 

[guanophore]

huh? Her acknowledgement does not mean she was saved from sin but rather her need of one.

It is not helpful to try to parse the verses in isolation fromeach other, ja4. This only leads to misunderstanding. THis canticle of Mary has to be looked at in the light of the Annuciation. The angel had already greeting her with a greeting that demonstrated her special preparation.

Paul uses the OT many times to highlight some point and reinterprets them to fit his theology that all means all. Even your church baptizes infants under the assumption they to have sin on their souls.

You misunderstand the teaching on sin, ja4. Infants are baptized to wash away original sin. The passage in Romans is not talking about original sin, but personal sin, caused by unbelief. Do you have a bible with cross references? Look at the psalm where the quotation comes from. Does it have a reference for “it is written”?
Going into this here will be off topic. Suffice to say Rom. 5:12 does not apply to everyone.

Since you are saying this does not apply to everyone, are there other people besides Mary who you believe never sinned? Does your church teach this also?

Not that I know of.

True and we have no such statement from them that Mary was sinless either.

Well, on the contrary, we do. We have Luke’s gospel. Now, we know Luke hung out with Paul lots, and we know Paul loved to draw analogies from the OT. How do we know that this didn’t come from those 2 years of preaching at Tyrannus?

You see, just because we don’t have all the apostles sermons does not mean they never made them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Huh? Mary’s greeting was hardly unique. Zacharias was first greeted and told of how special his son would be.

Are you claiming that Zachariah’s greeting is greater than Gabriel’s Greeting to Mary. Who was chosen by God to be the Mother of God? Mary. I think she, the greeting she received from Gabriel is more than unique. For with Mary, the Messiah became flesh and dwell amongst us.

Manoah’s wife, the mother of Samson, was greeted in much the same way as Mary, almost identically (Judges 13).

Hannah, too, was blessed and her prayer of thanks very similar to Mary’s. (1 Samuel 2)

Gideon in Judges 6:12 was greeted with “The Lord with thee, thou mighty man of valour”.

Mary’s hymn of praise was not a new thing, and apparently common to those who had been barren but granted childbirth by God’s power:

Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

These are Biblical typology, or types. The NT is hidden in the OT, and the OT is revealed in the NT. Compared to all other holy women in the Bible, only Mary gave birth to God, Jesus (true God, and true Man) , the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[guanophore]

There is not one shred of evidence from the scriptures for this assertion.

That greeting though does not mean she never sinned though.

It does to those who have recieved Apostolic Teaching. Your lack of ability to “see” the evidence that is there makes it invisible only to yourself, not the rest of us!

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is not one shred of evidence from the scriptures for this assertion.

There is. You just refuse to understand. That is your problem.

That greeting though does not mean she never sinned though.
True

Mary never sinned. She could have but she cooperated with God’s grace not to sin. The Scriptural Mary is obedient to God’s will, just as we Catholic firmly believe, and she never sinned.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As early as 235 AD, Mary is believed to be sinless.

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373) .

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388) .

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415) .

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446) .

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446) .

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449) .

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521) .

 

[Jzyehoshua]

I recommend Scott Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen, and other Catholic Apologetic sources to cite my sources. Many Catholic Apologists have compared Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. This is affirm in Revelation 11:19 to Revelation 12:1. We Catholics believe the woman clothed with sun is Mary. Of course you heard this before.

If the Revelation is read without verses. Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1-5 would be read as:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

I have no Biblical Scholarship. Do you?

Why would that woman be a literal one when prophetic symbolism is used to describe the nation of Israel when speaking of her adornment?

The twelve stars, the sun and the moon are specifically said to refer to Joseph and his 11 brothers with their parents Abraham and Sarah (see Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-10), so perhaps referring to the nation of Israel or God’s people.

Furthermore, there are 2 other women mentioned in Revelation, both of whom are symbolic for cities.

-One is the “Harlot of Babylon”, who is specifically stated to be symbolic of a “great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

-The other is the “New Jerusalem”:

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So even though those 2 women are symbolic for great cities, you want to believe the 3rd is a literal one for some reason?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3324297]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly just because a bishop mentions it in a sermon somewhere does not mean its true either.

guanophore
I agree with you entirely, which invalidates the whole point of your question. Knowing this, what difference does it make to you when those writers/preachers/bishops said those things?

All it shows what he thought about it. They carry no weight when they say something outside the bounds of Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Thirdly, just because he mentions it doesn’t mean it was believed by the church at the time. Who is to say any of these men speak for the entire church? Who is to say they cannot err on matters of faith?

guanophore
True, and they can err on matters of faith. However, the Church does not. What we can see is a thread going back that these things were always believed. That is what is evident in the early writings

.

How do you know what these men wrote at the time they wrote this was the belief of the entire church?

However, that will not make any difference to you, since you reject the Church Teaching on Mary’s sinlessness outright

.

Not so. I reject it after careful study of the Scriptures and from them form my conclusion.

You are trying to pursuade Catholics to reject it too, because you do not see it in your Bible.

Any you and other catholics are trying to persuade me….

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3324443]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is not one shred of evidence from the scriptures for this assertion.

Mannyfit75
There is. You just refuse to understand. That is your problem.

Not so. You are claiming that she was sinless. You have a problem in that the Scriptures don’t teach it. You bear the burden of proof not me.

Mary never sinned. She could have but she cooperated with God’s grace not to sin. The Scriptural Mary is obedient to God’s will, just as we Catholic firmly believe, and she never sinned.

Another assertion that cannot be supported.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why would that woman be a literal one when prophetic symbolism is used to describe the nation of Israel when speaking of her adornment?

The twelve stars, the sun and the moon are specifically said to refer to Joseph and his 11 brothers with their parents Abraham and Sarah (see Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-10), so perhaps referring to the nation of Israel or God’s people.

Furthermore, there are 2 other women mentioned in Revelation, both of whom are symbolic for cities.

-One is the “Harlot of Babylon”, who is specifically stated to be symbolic of a “great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

-The other is the “New Jerusalem”:

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So even though those 2 women are symbolic, you want to believe the 3rd is a literal one for some reason?

The Book of Revelation does contain a lot of symbolism. I reasons why I believe the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 is Mary is based on the child whom she gave birth too.

Revelation 12:1-5:
**
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. **

In verse 2, she with child. This child is Jesus Christ. In verse 5, she brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Verse 5 further state, the man-child was taken up to God and to his throne. This clearly implies, the ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven. We know that the glorified Jesus is sitting on the Right Hand of God, the Father, his throne. So we can conclude by interpreting this passage that the woman is Mary. If you interpret the persons in Revelation 12:1-5 as individuals. We know clearly the serpent is the Satan.

You also have to take into account, that the Book of Revelation is not to be read in chronological order. There are passages in the Book that speaks of the Lord being crucified in Sodom and Egypt in Revelation 11:8. We know the city to be Jerusalem because Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

Unless you can prove that the man-child is not Jesus, then the woman is not Mary. I do believe the man-child is Jesus.

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t think you are taking into consideration what Paul writes in Philippians 2:6-7 which says that Jesus “emptied” Himself of His full deity rights so that He could live among us as a man. He limited Himself for our sakes that He could live among us without destroying us because of our sin.
Who, 3 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 4
7
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance,

Paul does not say that Jesus emptied himself of his full deity rights. Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped at because he was God,and was obedient to God the Father.
Jesus said that he had the could lay down his life and take it up again. And when Jesus was about to be arrested,he told his apostles that he could call down twelve legions of angels to save him.

The other problem you have with this – “Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM” is that it is not supported in the gospels. Impure and sinful people are touching Him all the time and He does not destroy them for it.

You’re taking Mannyfit’s words too literally.

So it follows that Mary would not have to be sinless and pure for her to birth Jesus. Jesus would not be “contaminated” by Mary’ sinfulness nor any man’s for that matter.

If Jesus had been born of a Woman with original sin,then he would be affected. He would have inherited her fallen nature by transmission,just as we inherited our fallen nature from our parents. Jesus was true God and true man,and his human nature,which he had from Mary,was pure,like that of Adam before the fall. Mary is the New Eve. She is like Eve before the fall.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

It is interesting that you compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. Because if so… she likewise will become irrelevant!

Jeremiah 3:16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

Even as it is written of the Old Covenant:

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.